Skip to main content

About your Search

20121001
20121009
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
in his campaign. he has been raising pac may, too. what you have to do is comply with the laws as they are, whether you're paying taxes were you are playing a football game. whether you like those laws are not, you comply with them. i have been for campaign reform and have pushed it very hard. i believe we have to do some things in that regard. but i have noticed that the senator of indiana has opposed the campaign reform and voted repeatedly against it. the things we have to do, i believe, that will cut back on soft money, for example, which i look on as frankly one of those things that we have had to do because the republicans have done it for so long. i think it is a loophole, frankly. but campaign reform, changing the rules of the game, is something that we tried repeatedly in this session of the congress, but only to have the republicans' lead the charge against the ndp does. i respect senator quayle would change his mind on that piece of legislation and give us the kind of campaign reform law that i think is needed in america. >> senator quayle, your response. >> senator
sides of the aisle. it is looking at a simpson-bowles-type law and this is not new and we know it can be done and if you go back to when it was last done, simplifying the tax code, that was of course... >> chris: simpson-bowles were a lot more specific about lowering the rates and... >> he said he'll work across the aisle unlike the president when he pushed through the health care bill on a partisan base, he'll listen to both sides of the aisle and make sure, three principles stay clear. that he is going to give relief to the middle class, and he's going to make sure that we're more competitive, of course, creating jobs, because so many small businesses, file as individuals, and higher income individuals will not pay less and it will not impact the deficit. >> chris: you were about to talk about the president's vision. >> one thing is the president's vision for or country, the best way to put forward a vision is the budget. and he talked about, at the debate, his so-called $4 trillion plan to reduce the debt. but, what that really is, is this budget, the budget that he puts forth, one
the republican hopes had been. this was the voter i.d. law and struck down by a judge, said there's no way to get voter i.d.s to so many people in time for election day. >> right. this was always i think because as you point out, a narrow timeline, five weeks to the day from the election, but what this does is it does not put that strict voter i.d. law in place for pennsylvania. and i think barring some change or data i've not seen, i'm not convinced pennsylvania was in play even if law had been upheld. i just don't think the votes add up for republicans in pennsylvania. i always say it's like charlie brown, lucy and the football. every time charlie brown tries to kick the football, lucy pulls it away. that's pennsylvania for republicans. look at the numbers and say theoretically we can get there but ultimately can never get there. s there this ruling is an icing or cherry on top. i don't think they would have won the state regardless, less likely today. >> and when you look at the fact that early voting is starting in ohio, iowa, all these states already voting, how does that affect the way the
the congress and the president today from passing a law that would require full and timely disclosure of contributions to these superpacs and others. the supreme court scission did not do that. they are working for themselves and their party. what we need is campaign finance reform. i will give you a simple principle, that the people who can contribute directly or indirectly are people who can vote. news flash -- corporations and unions cannot vote. it is a simple principle, one of the ones we are exposing to the public, and they overwhelmingly endorsed it. most of these areas -- it is very common sense. that is what the american people respond to. that is not how our politicians treat us. that is part of the problem. >> don't you think it is interesting in all of these really tough times, we have talked all about these big numbers, that the house, the sense, and the white house did not reduce their salaries? think about it. >> do you think they should? >> if you were in business, you would have to. they need to set the first example of making the cut back for themselves. >> leading b
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)